Availability

II. Principles of Law

(b) Restrictions Imposed by Claimant

It is a well-established rule that a claimant who imposes unreasonable restrictions on the type of work he or she is looking for or, on the area in which he or she is willing to work, fails to prove availability.

Canada (A.G) v. Whiffen [1994], F.C.J. No. 252 (F.C.A.)  A-1472-92 Judgment of the federal court of appeal

The absence of personal conditions that might unduly limit the chance of returning to the labour market is a factor that must be considered in reaching a conclusion with respect to availability.

Faucher v. C.E.I.C., [1997] F.C.J. No. 215 (F.C.A.)  A-57-96 Judgment of the federal court of appeal
Canada (A.G.) v. Loder, [2004] F.C.J. No. 133 (F.C.A.)  A-669-02 Judgment of the federal court of appeal

The reasonableness of a restriction will be assessed on the basis of the claimant's attitude, conduct, and taking into account all of the circumstances.

Canada (A.G.) v. Whiffen [1994], F.C.J. No. 252 (F.C.A.)  A-1472-92 Judgment of the federal court of appeal

Setting unreasonable salary requirements will be an indication of non-availability.

Canada (A.G.) v. Michael, March 23, 1994, F.C.J. No. 379 (F.C.A.)  A-1692-92 Judgment of the federal court of appeal

[  previous Previous page  |  table of contents  |  next Next page  ]